Review a few months cannot refer however, can the negligence of groom school ask spirit damage compensation?

2022-06-24 0 By

Think of an encounter two years ago, some training school students Xiaoxia still sigh unceasingly.Case review on July 7, 2020, Xiaoxia to a training school pay 1380 yuan training fees, used to participate in the enterprise human resource management teacher training, registration exam, after the training school xiaoxia issued learning materials, and remind it to submit examination review materials on time, Xiaoxia submitted examination review materials on time.After that, Xiaoxia reviewed carefully and tried to prepare for the exam, but when she went to the exam a few months later, she found that she could not take the exam!Originally, because of the negligence of a staff member of training school, did not sign up for xiaoxia.Xiaoxia was not angry when she heard this. Unfortunately, from 2021, the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security will no longer organize the registration and make-up examination for new students of the occupation of enterprise human resource management.Xiaoxia was then engaged in accounting work in a clothing center, annual income of about 60, 70 thousand, to participate in the exam for the future career “plus”, unable to refer to her hit.Xiaoxia angrily filed a lawsuit to the Court of Liuhe, requesting the defendant to refund tuition 1380 yuan, in liuhe newspaper apology, and pay 6000 yuan for mental damage compensation.The training school of the defendant is willing to apologize to the plaintiff and refund the tuition of 1380 yuan, but it believes that the plaintiff should prove the extent of the mental damage suffered by the plaintiff. The relationship between the two parties is only contractual, and the defendant did not intentionally cause it, and the mental damage compensation 6000 yuan claimed by the plaintiff is not legal basis.The school also believes that the human resource management exam is a level test, not a qualification test, and that people can work in the human resource industry without a qualification certificate.And even if the plaintiff took the test, he might not pass it.Results The Liuhe Court held that natural persons enjoy personal rights based on personal freedom and personal dignity.If the right of personality is infringed upon, the aggrieved person shall have the right to request the perpetrator to bear civil liability.Due to the negligence of the staff of a training school, Xiaoxia was unable to take the exam, which damaged xiaoxia’s personal rights and interests. Xiaoxia chose to request a training school to assume tort liability, in line with the law, the training school agreed to refund the training fee of 1380 yuan and apologize, which was confirmed by the court.Regarding Xiaoxia’s claim for compensation for mental damage, the court believed that the behavior of a training school violated xiaoxia’s general personality rights and interests that she should enjoy, and caused certain mental damage to her, and determined that a training school should pay Xiaoxia 1,000 yuan for mental damage compensation at the discretion.The judge said that the judgment applied the provisions of civil code on general personality rights and played the role of dynamic system theory in the imputation.The focus of the dispute between the two parties is whether there is legal basis for the mental damage compensation claimed by the plaintiff.The plaintiff signed up for the training of human resource managers for better career development and used his spare time to prepare for the examination. However, due to the reason of the defendant, he lost the last chance to take the examination and failed to choose a job, thus his personal right was inevitably violated.The civil Code summarizes the general personality rights of natural persons as personal freedom and personal dignity.Personal dignity is a natural person’s recognition and respect for his or others’ personal or social value based on his or her social environment, status, reputation, work environment, family relations and other objective conditions.The case found that the defendant’s behavior violated the plaintiff’s general personality rights, and considered the plaintiff’s age, occupation, income status, the nature of the behavior of the training school, the degree of fault, the impact of the consequences and other factors in determining the compensation for mental damage, giving full play to the role of dynamic system theory in the attribution, which has typical significance.Disclaimer: This article is reproduced for the purpose of conveying more information.If the source is wrong or violated your legitimate rights and interests, please contact the author with proof of ownership, we will promptly correct, delete, thank you.Email address: